Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Paul Ohm is starting a new "very occasional" feature on the Freedom To Tinker blog called You Are Not a Lawyer — "In this series, I will try to disabuse computer scientists and other technically minded people of some commonly held misconceptions about the law (and the legal system)." In the first installment, Ohm walks through the reasons why many techies' faith in the presence of "reasonable doubt" is so misplaced. "When techies think about criminal law, and in particular crimes committed online, they tend to fixate on [the 'beyond a reasonable doubt'] legal standard, dreaming up ways people can use technology to inject doubt into the evidence to avoid being convicted. I can't count how many conversations I have had with techies about things like the 'open wireless access point defense,' the 'trojaned computer defense,' the 'NAT-ted firewall defense,' and the 'dynamic IP address defense.' ... People who place stock in these theories and tools are neglecting an important drawback. There are another set of legal standards — the legal standards governing search and seizure — you should worry about long before you ever get to 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

This takes an hour to watch, but well worth your time. In these videos a lawyer and then a cop explain very clearly why talking to cops never works in your favor. Watch it. Learn it. Live it.

As far as the article is concerned: He is bringing up old news that being put through the legal wringer will cost you time, money, and reputation in the community that you can not get back - even if you are innocent and/or found innocent. The best bet is to not do the crime (though if you watch the videos you will see that it is just about impossible to avoid breaking all laws).

As part of an engineering education, you take one course in law. Basically, it's an overview of contract law, the legal system, various appeals you can go through, etc. The idea is to make you realize that lawyers go through as much or more schooling as engineers do (often more), they go through an articling phase, and they're professionals at what they do.

You wouldn't get a lawyer to design a bridge, so don't try to get a "techie" to answer legal questions.

If you've got a legal question, ask your attorney. If you don't have one, get one on retainer.

If the police ask you questions, the only appropriate answer is "My lawyer's name is ____."

the Jurisdiction was stupid enough to let their public officials have search warrants with a presumption of innocence

The only test for a search warrant is that there's enough evidence to justify collecting more evidence. Something fishy happening with "your" IP address certainly clears that bar: a reasonable person would conclude that the most likely explanation was that it was your computer, and therefore your computer should be searched for futher evidence.

The police aren't supposed to wait for conclusive evidence of guilt before searching - how would that even work?

If you want to sue the police for harassing you, it's up to you to prove that the police crossed the line, knowingly or as the result of gross negligence.

You do the same thing you do when you need a doctor and are new in town. You ask people, you look at the specialty of the professional in question, and you call for an appointment. You do not have to have a lawyer on retainer at all times. Many times a first visit is free, so if you get a bad vibe from a lawyer, or don't feel like they are listening to your concerns, try another. While I would not want a patent lawyer defending me in criminal court, if I was arrested and the only lawyer I knew was a patent lawyer, I would call him and ask for help getting the right kind.

While I would not want a patent lawyer defending me in criminal court, if I was arrested and the only lawyer I knew was a patent lawyer, I would call him and ask for help getting the right kind.

I would second this. I have a family friend that is a malpractice lawyer (defends doctors). Since I am not a doctor, I have no use for his services pretty much ever. Last year, however, my aunt died and we needed a probate lawyer, so we asked him. Sure enough, he knew several and even had one working in his firm. It seems to me that, much like doctors, most lawyers are specialists these days. The downside is that there is rarely no "one-size-fits-all" lawyer, but typically, if you can find even one lawyer your trust/like, then if you need something that is not in their specialty, they can recommend someone who does specialize in what you need.

Depends on what kind of lawyer you want. Usually you're looking for an attorney of some kind.

Probably looking at a minimum of $500 to retain an attorney for general defense.

Specialists, that's another kettle of fish. And of course it just depends on the lawyer.

Try the yellow pages, just call and ask them.

As for the competency, check with your local Bar Association, and ask the specific firm for referrals from former clients. Many of them have some type of 'resume' of case histories they'll give you for review.